| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-03 15:09:19 |
| Message-ID: | 54072F1F.8020107@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/3/14 5:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 07:54:09AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I am not against to improve a PL/pgSQL. And I repeat, what can be done and can
>> be done early:
>>
>> a) ASSERT clause -- with some other modification to allow better static analyze
>> of DML statements, and enforces checks in runtime.
>>
>> b) #option or PRAGMA clause with GUC with function scope that enforce check on
>> processed rows after any DML statement
>>
>> c) maybe introduction automatic variable ROW_COUNT as shortcut for GET
>> DIAGNOSTICS rc = ROW_COUNT
>
> All these ideas are being captured somewhere, right? Where?
I'm working on a wiki page with all these ideas. Some of them break
backwards compatibility somewhat blatantly, some of them could be added
into PL/PgSQL if we're okay with reserving a keyword for the feature.
All of them we think are necessary.
.marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-09-03 15:12:36 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-03 15:06:14 | Re: Misleading error message in logical decoding for binary plugins |